Washington Poll: ‘Approve R-71′ has big lead, I-1033 votes still close
The Washington Poll, a non-partisan project of the University of Washington (and also includes work from our own Western Washington University political scientist Todd Donovan), has released its latest results for this year’s general election.
In terms of state initiatives and referenda, the ‘Approve’ R-71 camp has a large lead with 56 percent of those polled saying they were certain to vote yes, were in favor but could change their minds or leaning toward yes versus 39 percent polled saying they were certain to vote no, were not in favor but could change their minds or leaning toward no.
The poll of 724 registered voters had a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points, and placing the “yes but could change” and “leaning yes” votes on the “no” side still has the referendum passing about 5 percentage points ahead.
Meanwhile, Tim Eyman’s property-tax-restricting Initiative 1033 has much closer and within the margin of error. Some 46 percent would vote no versus 41 percent in favor. The margin of error was 3.6 percent and 13 percent of the 724 people polled were undecided.
Meanwhile the pollsters also checked out the approval ratings of President Obama, Gov. Chris Gregoire, the state Legislature and Congress.
You can see the results, including details of the initiative and referendum polling, over here.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:23 PM
I still find polls something to be highly skeptical of… but it gives me hope to think R-71 will pass and 1033 won’t. I expect, though, that Eyman will keep up his irrational obsession with property taxes–only 11% of state revenue but 50% of Eyman’s ‘tax relief for all’ initiatives.
Also, in this poll, why do self-described liberal, moderate, and those with college degrees have fairly large point spreads taking one side, while those that describe themselves as conservatives and those without college degrees have fairly large point spreads in the opposite direction?
October 27th, 2009 at 2:05 PM
There are some of us who actually live in the real world!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
October 27th, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Sorry, I couldn’t turn that down!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
October 27th, 2009 at 3:19 PM
It’s potentially good news for I-1033 but this is not the election. It is only a statistical sampling of a point in time a week before all ballots must be mailed to be counted. And there is the margin of error.
Plus all those that are tired of Eyman initiatives, send him a message. Get your ballot in with a no vote on I-1033 and urge your friends and family to vote no. The higher the no vote the more people may pause before signing another Eyman initiative.
This one needs to be voted down. Besides freezing public services during a recession, it is a transfer of tax dollars collected from everyone to give a huge tax break to those with lots of property. Our current tax system already is regressive, putting more of a tax burden on low and middle income taxpayers and I-1033 makes it worse. Vote No I-1033.
October 27th, 2009 at 3:36 PM
“There are some of us who actually live in the real world!” -AFY
What was that in response to?
October 27th, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Just having fun, if it flew by, don’t worry!
I likes having fun, don’t you know! My wife will also admits most me jokes ain’t that funny, so welcome to the club!
AFY!!thesheepdog!!!
October 27th, 2009 at 5:38 PM
TO THOSE WHO ARE STILL UNDECIDED ON REF 71:
You’ve probably heard of Fred Phelps, the Baptist preacher from Kansas who has taken homophobia to new depths. He and his “flock” have actually, cruelly demonstrated at the funerals of American military personnel killed in action in Iraq and elsewhere. His sign of choice: “God hates fags!!!”
The difference between Phelps and his gang of haters and the religious right homophobes who created Ref 71 is only a matter of degree.
If you identify with Phelps & Co. then vote against Ref 71. But if you can see through the smoke screen of lies and realize Ref 71 is about civil rights, NOT gay marriage, you’ll VOTE YES ON REF 71!!!
October 27th, 2009 at 6:11 PM
Interesting how the anti-1033 contributors and supporters consist only of unions and a small handful of individuals. Meanwhile those in favor of 1033 consist of many thousands of real people. The strategy has been simple - big money for ads, scare tactics and misinformation.
Watch very closely what happens after this election. The unions and legislature are planning to gut the 60% requirement before adding more taxes voted in by large majority of the people - because the two year “hands off” time is nearly over. They won’t tell the public what they have up their sleeve because they know it would cause 1033 to pass by a landslide.
October 27th, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Now THERE’S a gender gap! Women - yes on 71 at 62%, men yes on 71 at 49%.
That’s an unusually large gap.
Is it:
a. women don’t feel threatened by someone else having ‘everything but marriage’
b. a sense of fairness, or
c. just plain common sense
October 28th, 2009 at 12:03 AM
I can’t figure out how people can be so gullible as to believe Eyman’s tax shift increasing the tax burden on low and middle income people to help pay property taxes for corporations and shopping malls and people’s investment homes and vacation homes makes any sense.
Eyman as usual is doing like Ronald Reagan proposing to cutting taxes for the wealthy and tossing in a few scraps for the rest of us and saying hey I’m reducing everyone’s taxes. But he isn’t.
Renters who pay sales taxes and other fees own no property and will see no tax rebate. Renters make up 35% of households in the state. Why should renters pay the taxes for people’s vacation homes and investment properties and for corporations and businesses like Boeing and Weyerhaeuser and Microsoft.(Microsoft for the record actually opposes I-1033) and shopping malls like Bellevue Square owned by Eyman supporter Kemper Freeman and real estate developers?
It doesn’t make sense. Vote No and keep Tim Eyman’s hands out of your pockets.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:32 AM
I thought the gender and education gaps were interesting also.
Hmmm. . . . .
Maybe only women or those with college degrees should be allowed to vote.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Reject R-71
Don’t be fooled. A vote to approve R71 is a vote for gay marriage. If that isn’t clear, then you’re really NOT living in the real world. Look at what’s happened in other states! It’s a vote to have your children taught about homosexuality as young as 5 years of age and giving you no chance to opt your child out of such indoctrination. It’s a vote to change the law so that intentionally deprives a child of being raised by both a mother and a father. It’s a vote to force christian adoption agencies to close because they believe in placing a child in a family they know gives children their best chance for success for life: a home with a real mom and dad. It’s a vote to force christian schools to hire gay teachers because to refuse to hire a teacher because he or she is gay would be ‘discriminatory.’ It’s a vote for even the most reprehensible public exhibitions of homosexual conduct to be allowed because to arrrest someone for public nudity or public sex if they are gay would be ‘discriminatory.’ And if you think this can’t happen in Washington, just look at what’s happening in Massachusetts and California, as people like Gavin Newsom, the gay mayor of San Francisco, wield their authority to promote the gay lifestyle. Please, if this isn’t what you want for your state, you must Reject R-71.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Let’s hope that approval of R71 does lead to gay marriage.
How sad it is in this day and age that there are people who actually believe that equal rights will lead to
“even the most reprehensible public exhibitions of homosexual conduct”.
Unbelievable.
Fortunately,they are the minority in this country.
Welcome to the twenty first century,like it or not.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Holy cow, Karen Grube, what a steaming pile of crap! Homophobia and descrimination have no place in the 21st century. The “real world” I live in contains homosexuals. Lots of them. And they are not trying to indoctrinate anyone.
All people deserve to be treated equally. An APPROVE vote on R-71 simply gives gay couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples. Basic human rights. Your marriage won’t be compromised. Your children won’t be forced to become gay. It’s a simple fact; gay people have always been here, they will always be here, and it’s time to wake up to the fact. Your hate for a loving group of people who contribute in a myriad of ways to society is so ugly. Lose the hate, lose the fear.
Heterosexuals unite! APPROVE R-71!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:36 AM
I have to give it to commenter Grube for attempting to bring the anti-rights talking points into this rather educated and enlightened forum.
Even the staunchest normal opponent of this referendum wouldn’t have claimed that gay marriage was gonna be Taught in our schools to five year-olds.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Karen, thank you for vividly illustrating, and thus validating, my post above about the homophobia that permeates the anti-civil rights gang fighting Ref 71.
EVERY SINGLE POINT YOU MAKE IS A SCURRILOUS LIE WORTHY OF FRED PHELPS! Reading your diatribe, one can feel bigotry and hatred in every word.
If anyone is still undecided, your venomous screed should be enough to make them VOTE FOR REF 71!!!!!
October 28th, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Ms. Grube says, “It’s a vote to force christian adoption agencies to close because they believe in placing a child in a family they know gives children their best chance for success for life: a home with a real mom and dad. It’s a vote to force christian schools to hire gay teachers because to refuse to hire a teacher because he or she is gay would be ‘discriminatory.’”
Going back in time, that’s like saying 60’s civil rights laws are wrong because it would penalize Christian adoption agencies for being discriminatory for placing children in white households only, or that Christian employers would be penalized for being discriminatory for not hiring anyone but white people. The Reject R-71 people made the same argument on the KCTS debate.
Hey guess what, it’s discriminatory whether it’s a law or not. Should discrimination not be allowed in a country that is supposed to be founded upon the ideals of freedom? I think so.
Further, “public nudity or public sex” is illegal under public decency laws, and after R-71 passes it will still be illegal under public decency laws, so what was your point and how would it encourage more?
October 28th, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Also, for other people’s entertainment, here is another, longer spiel, by Karen Grube found at Newsvine.com (It could conceivably be a different person who has the same name and identical anti-gay views and uses pretty much the same anti-gay beliefs in the same arguments. It could be.)
For context, this was in response to an article about gay rights supporters being divided on Obama.
“Just to be clear about this, the voters of this country won’t settle either! We will not stop until traditional marriage is a part of the US Constitution the way it already is in over 30 states, until gay marriage is gone from the few states in which it is currently allowed, until there is no need for DOMA because there is no reason any longer to have to defend traditional marriage, until people like Kevin Jennings are out of any position of responsibility in our government so they never have the opportunity to mess up any kid’s life again, until parents are the ones who decide what values their kids are taught in public schools, until we stop creating laws that deprive a child of having both a mom and a dad, until schools and public facilities refuse to allow men to walk into the ladies room whenever they ‘feel like a woman,’ until organizations like adoption agencies don’t have to shut their doors because they want to give the children they’re trying to place the best start in life by placing them in traditional families, until our service men and women don’t have to worry about the sexual preference of the their fellow soldiers because no one has to ask and no one has to tell, and until our leaders have more common decency than to try to glorify a child molester like Harvey Milk by nominating him for any kind of award or recognition.
All we need to accomplish that is a new President, a new Congress, several new Governors and state legislators, several new State Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges (especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), and a Supreme Court that actually reads the original constitution rather than trying to rewrite it!
That’s not too much to ask. All it takes is for people to pay attention to what’s going on and actually VOTE!! You can make a difference, even in an off-year election!! Don’t lose this opportunity to get rid of the kinds of changes we never wanted or asked for! Be sure you’re registered and be sure you vote in 2010. It won’t happen without you!”
October 28th, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Thanks for the additional posting, Bob. My guess is that “Karen Grube” is a pseudonym for a committee; no individual could contain that much hatred and venom.
Unless, of course “Karen” is actually Fred Phelps in drag!
October 29th, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Bill, you need to find a “happy place” and spend about 30 minutes a day there.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:37 PM
I wish it were commonplace to see respectful discussions about political issues and not the more prevalent bigotry against those with differing viewpoints.
The idea that marriage is, as one poster stated, a “basic human right,” is intellectually dishonest and an insult to the Civil Rights struggles of the 50s and 60s. Were marriage a right, I concede that it should not be subject to a vote by a tyrannical majority. That would be absurd. However, the fact is that the rights of homosexuals to marry has never been questioned or brought before the voting public. Those whom are pre-disposed to attraction towards their same gender have always had the right to marry. As defined by the majority of society well within it’s right, a marriage is a union between one man and one woman and does not and should not discriminate based on any attributes—including sexual orientation.
The majority in this country agrees that a marriage should be limited to two parties; agrees that both parties must be of a certain age; agrees that both parties must be human; agrees that the parties must be of significant familial distance from one another. Under the reasoning behind many of the diatribes related to R-71 (not the initiative itself), all of these restrictions are violating someone’s “civil rights.” The idea that a majority should not have the right to define the properties of a civil institution is absurd.
This has nothing to do with my personal feelings on what the properties of this social institution we call marriage should be. There are dozens of differing views on the subject, none any less valid than the other. However, accusations of discrimination or the denying of “basic human rights” are extremely serious things. I assure you that it is possible to have civil discourse on the issue without resorting to the belittling of legitimate Civil Rights struggles…struggles where rights actually were being denied to a certain portion of the population. Being unable to differentiate between the two is no excuse for unnecessarily inflammatory statements or bigotry against people who do not share your particular ideas of what the properties of a given civil institution should be.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Dear Ms. Grube,
Your views do not represent Christianity. Jesus never once mentioned homosexuality in his teachings, but time and time again he spoke out against the hypocrisy of the ‘religious’ for their hateful holier-than-thou attitude (eg. Pharisees). The Lutheran Church allows men and women in committed homosexual relationships to serve in the clergy, and condones homosexual marriage. Your views represent ignorance and bigotry, nothing more.
Do you believe that single parents cannot raise children, because the child won’t have a mother and a father? Do you believe that adopted children live in an unhealthy home because their parents did not procreate to make them? If not, then you should can your comments about ‘depriving children of a real mother and father,’ whatever the hell that means.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Karen Grube wrote: “And if you think this can’t happen in Washington, just look at what’s happening in Massachusetts and California, as people like Gavin Newsom, the gay mayor of San Francisco, wield their authority to promote the gay lifestyle.”
Gavin Newsom is gay? You know, that’s going to be a huge surprise to his beautiful wife and young daughter.